General Question

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

14 Answers

zenvelo's avatar

Things don’t look good, except the Senate grown ups (and Mitch McConnell is not one of them) realize this may hurt the re-election chances of any on-the-bubble GOP Senators.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The Republicans are really on the ropes as the pummeling continues. Listen to their line of logic in their rendition of current events. “Since we have announced that we will not consider any nominee while Obama is in office, the President is irresponsibly politicizing the confirmation process by putting forth a candidate”. Straight up bullshit!

What’s really going on is that Obama is doing his job as the Republicans once again threaten to refuse to do theirs. It’s just that simple and merely a continuation of the tactics defining Republican obstructionism since the announcement of Obama’s win in the 08 election. But this time they’re really stepping in it. Obama has submitted the perfect candidate who has been gauged exemplary by EVEN the Republicans in the Senate. In fact the favorable ratings for the man were unanimous. This leaves the conservatives once again holding the bag for ’“dysfunctional government” come election day, and the Democrats will gleefully beat them over the head with it.

Jaxk's avatar

Doesn’t seem likely that anything will happen before the election. If the shoe were on the other foot the results would be the same. Democrats will continue to scream and yell but I doubt that will have much impact on anyone other than Democrats. Another good wedge issue but not particularly effective.

JLeslie's avatar

I’m disgusted if there isn’t a confirmation hearing relatively quickly. Obama is the President now, elected by the majority and the electoral college. From what I understand Garland is not an extremely biased judge in his rulings. He is well respected by people in both political parties.

I see no reason to wait. The Republicans are waiting for their likely winner, Trump, to make the appointment? I doubt Trump is going to choose someone extremely biased to the right. It’s stupid.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Hatch is a coward. He used to be a smart guy. He used to be a leader. What a poor way to close out a career.

Strauss's avatar

@JLeslie I’m disgusted if there isn’t a confirmation hearing relatively quickly.

That about sums up my feelings about this entire Congressional session, and I don’t expect anything different. It doesn’t surprise me, given the obstinate obstructionist obfuscation that is presented by the party of “no”.

I’m sure there will be those who would say the Democrats would definitely do the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot, but the record speaks for itself.

ragingloli's avatar

As I said before, republicans do not want an impartial judge.
Now Obama has nominated an impartial judge.
And the reps oppose him.

ibstubro's avatar

If the shoe were on the other foot, @Jaxk? I honestly believe the Democrats would hold hearings and eventually confirm.

Chances are pretty damned good that the next President will nominate a replacement for one of the current standing justices. Nearly certain if the next President is a 2-termer. Better to play nice about a universally accepted moderate and let the next appointee sway the court. Or, better yet, not set the court, one way way or the other, but let them decide on the merits of the case, not personal bias.

Jaxk's avatar

@ibstubro – Actually past statements and filibusters would decry your first paragraph. The issue is not whether Garland is peredisposed to conservative or liberal positions but rather the basic philosophy on how to interpret the constitution. Conservatives believe the constitution should be interpreted as written. That the intention of the writers is what is important. Liberals believe that the constitution is a living breathing document that should be interpreted with the mores of contemporary society.

For instance, the first amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. A liberal interpretation gave us “separation of church and State”. A conservative interpretation would be “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Two different completely impartial judges may come to completely different positions based on those fundamental differences. The liberal interpretation may make it easier to change unjust laws but that is not the purview of the court. That responsibility resides with the legislature. An overzealous court decision will last virtually forever while legislative errors can be rectified. Creating law should stay with the legislature. That’s what all this is about. It’s not about Garland.

ibstubro's avatar

“Conservatives believe the constitution should be interpreted as written.”

”[The President] shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were particularly concerned that Congress might seek to exercise the appointment power and fill offices with their supporters, to the derogation of the President’s control over the executive branch. The Appointments Clause thus functions as a restraint on Congress and as an important structural element in the separation of powers. Attempts by Congress to circumvent the Appointments Clause, either by making appointments directly, or through devices such as ‘unilaterally appointing an incumbent to a new and distinct office’ under the guise of legislating new duties for an existing office, have been rebuffed by the courts.

ibstubro's avatar

Interesting how that works, @Jaxk.
Refusing to follow the explicit instructions of the Constitution to further your “philosophy on how to interpret the constitution”.

“Statements and filibusters” are a far cry from refusing to do the job the Senate was elected to do. Refusing to hold hearings in indefensible and unconscionable.
Just look at the stupid-shit justifications the Republican leaders are giving.

It’s shortsighted and stupid. Trump or Clinton, the most expeditious thing for the next President to do is nominate Garland.
He’s a great jurist.
The next sitting President will likely get another shot at making a nominee that shapes the court.
It would be a big “Fuck you!” to the Republican establishment, a plus for either candidate.

It looks to me like the Republicans are putting all their eggs in the basket of Cruz or some other neo-nazi being the next President. Slim chances, as best.
Trump’s not even a Republican. Or conservative. Why would you risk putting the Supreme Court in his hands when there’s a mutually acceptable alternative nominee?

Jaxk's avatar

@ibstubro – It’s really quite simple. There is nothing in anything you posted that requires the senate to vote on let alone approve a nominee. While Harry Reid was majority leader he tabled almost every bill the House sent him. That is the same thing. You weren’t complaining then. Now you want to make up some constitutional thing that requires a vote but it’s simply not there.

ibstubro's avatar

Really? @Jaxk? I wasn’t complaining when Reid/Pelosi were obstructing?? You need to stop pouring your propaganda out of the party can, and pay attention.

I don’t think it matters if you’re Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. I believe the Senate blocking Garland for blocking sake is stupid and short-sighted.
All they’re doing is fueling the anti-Republican establishment fervor, and for nothing.

And where did I say the Senate was required to have hearings? I believe it’s on their own personal best interests to hold hearings and let Garland be confirmed. Again.

Jaxk's avatar

Maybe there’s a simple solution to all this. Congress can just pass legislation to shrink the size of the court to 7 or 8 and the vacancy would just go away. The size of the court is not fixed by the constitution and it has grown and shrunk over the years. Would that make everyone happier?

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther